Judgment 1. The appellant/1st respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.1092 of 2007, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur. 2. The petitioners, who are the wife and minor children of the deceased Subbiah, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2005, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of the said Subbiah in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 01.03.2004, when the deceased Subbiah who was employed as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, was driving the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-67N-0063 on the Rajapalayam to Srivilliputhur road, from North towards south and when the bus was nearing Vasuki Nursery Garden, the 2nd respondents bus bearing registration No.TN-58X-3654, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus. In the impact, the (deceased) Subbiah sustained severe injuries and died while on the way to the hospital. Hence, the petitioners, who are the dependents on the income of the deceased, have filed the claim against the 1st , 2nd and 3rd respondents, who are the insurer, the owner of the bus bearing registration No.TN-58X-3654 and the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited. 3. The 1st respondent, in his counter has submitted that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the (deceased) Subbiah and that the driver of the 2d respondents bus had not been negligent as alleged. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. 4. The 3rd respondent in his counter has submitted that the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus i.e., the deceased Subbiah had not been negligent in his driving and that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 2nd respondents bus bearing registration No.TN-58X-3654. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner?; (2) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?. 6. 5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Due to whose negligence was the accident caused?; Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner?; (2) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioner is entitled to get?. 6. On the petitioner's side, the 1st petitioner i.e., wife of the deceased Subbiah was examined as PW.1 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-charge sheet; Ex.P3-copy of post mortem report dated 02.03.2004; Ex.P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report for bus bearing registration No.TN-58H-3654; Ex.P5-Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report for bus bearing registration No.TN-67N-0063 Ex.P6-Salary certificate of deceased Subbiah. On the respondents side, one witness was examined and no documents was marked. 7. PW.1, had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her evidence, she had marked the exhibits listed as P1 to P6. 8. RW.1, Amirtha Muruga Pandian, had adduced evidence that on 01.03.2004, he was working as a Conductor of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration No.TN-67N-0063 and that the deceased Subbiah was working as the driver of the said bus. He deposed that when the bus was proceeding near Vasuki Nursery Garden near the entrance of Rajapalayam and proceeding from North towards South, the driver of the bus had seen a lorry stationed on the left side of the road. When the (deceased) Subbiah, tried to pass the stationery lorry, the 2nd respondents bus coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus and caused the accident. He deposed that the (deceased) Subbiah sustained severe injuries and died while being taken to the hospital. He deposed that the accident had been caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 2nd respondent's bus. 9. The Tribunal, observed that the F.I.R and the charge sheet had been filed as against the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus i.e., the (deceased) Subbiah. He deposed that the accident had been caused only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 2nd respondent's bus. 9. The Tribunal, observed that the F.I.R and the charge sheet had been filed as against the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus i.e., the (deceased) Subbiah. However, the Tribunal, on careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent's bus driver and hence held the insurer of the bus i.e., the 1st respondent liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 10. From a scrutiny of Ex.P6, salary certificate, the Tribunal held that the net monthly income of the deceased Subbiah was Rs.3,574/-from scrutiny of Ex.P3, post mortem report, it is seen that the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal on adopting a multiplier of 15', as was relevant to the age of the deceased and deducting 1/3rd of his income for his personal expenses, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,28,880/- (Rs.3,574/-x2/3x12x15). The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the petitioners under the head of loss of love and affection. Rs.2,500/- was awarded towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,51,380/- to the petitioners as compensation and directed the 1st respondent to deposit the said sum together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit, within one month from the date of its order. 11. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/Oriental Insurance Company, Rajapalayam has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal failed to consider that the F.I.R has been filed only against the deceased driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-67N-006, for his rash and negligent driving. It was pointed out that the Tribunal failed to consider that the bus bearing registration No.TN-58H-3654 came in the left hand side of the road and the (deceased) driver of the bus had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner, overtook a stationery lorry and dashed against the bus bearing registration No.TN-58H-3654, in the right hand side of the road, beyond the median. It was pointed out that the Tribunal failed to consider the exhibits marked as P1, P2, P4 and P5 in a proper perspective and without any discussion and reasoning with regard to the nature of the accident, fixed the negligence on the driver of the 5th respondent's bus in a one line order. It was contended that the award of Rs.4,51,380/-granted to the petitioners is excessive and without any basis. 12. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the respondent's vehicle had been driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and that he had dashed his bus against the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, in which the (deceased) Subbiah had died while on the way to the hospital. Taking advantage of this situation, the respondent's vehicle driver had levelled a false complaint against the deceased. If the said accident had been committed by the (deceased) Subbiah, it could be proved only on production of rough sketch to determine the tyre marks of both vehicles, but the respondent had not produced any documentary evidence to show that the (deceased) had committed the said accident. The learned counsel further submitting that the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. The claims Tribunal ought to have granted compensation under the head of loss of love and affection and funeral expenses. The claims tribunal ought to have granted compensation under the head of loss of consortium and transport. The adequate compensation has not been granted to the claimants. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th claimants are minors. 13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any short comings in the findings arrived at to determine the liability and quantum of compensations. As per this Court record, this Court had directed the appellant on 22.10.2007, to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the said amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, if it had not been deposited earlier. 14. As per this Court record, this Court had directed the appellant on 22.10.2007, to deposit the entire award amount with interest and costs. Now, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the said amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, if it had not been deposited earlier. 14. After such deposit has been made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals, the minors attaining the age of major. 15. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, is confirmed, dated 27.02.2007.No costs.